It’s pretty much exactly 15% more: 1096 x 1.15 = 1260
Boarstone is at the top end of 2 hour endurance workouts. If you compare the kJs to the top end of 2 hour sweet spot workouts, again, they’re about 15% higher.
That said, I think it’s pretty clear that if you’re trying to maximize the amount of kJs you expend you should just smash as much Z2 as you possibly can. The problem is when you (in general, not you specifically) make the claim that a 2 hour SS and 2 hour endurance workout have the same kJ output so you’re just adding unnecessary fatigue by doing SS.
That claim is assuming that the fatigue from the SS workout is impactful and that there’s no difference in the quality of kJs between SS vs Z2. If you’re only doing 3-5 hours a week, there’s no way you’re going to bury yourself with SS work. So at that volume, it seems clear that you would want the more potent dose that SS provides. This approach obviously doesn’t scale.
I’m sure Pogacar is not doing 1.5 hours of zone 2 4 times a week… What I meant was Pogacar’s coach probably knows a thing or two about training and if he’s a big advocate of zone 2. I mean, everyone is. It’s barely even questioned. If you have 6 hours to train a week you could do a lot worse for a base than just 6 hours of zone 2. I’d take that over 3 * 10 minute SS intervals 3 times over or whatever various plans would have you do.
this kJ work thread plot twist - really don’t understand the idea of comparing different workouts on the basis of kJ. Am I missing some important point worthy of debate, or is it like getting bored with a series and time to find a new one?
Maybe thats the disconnect. My understanding is they have updated the plans somewhat, and with adaptive training, the workout difficulty is increased/decreased based on your current fitness (as described by your current workout progression level). So in the end, it is possible that the SS workouts TR is prescribing are different than the ones you had.
Zone 2 using the zones ISM uses is 0.3-06 mmol above base line lactate from previous interviews with him ( I’ve listened to them all ). This for me and many other that I’ve tested is mid zone 3 using standard power zones (80-88% FTP).
It’s not slow.
I think a 90 mins session at straight ISM zone 2 wouldn’t be easy. I would need a normal 15 mins warm up and you would be concentrating.
A 90 mins zone 2 workout using coggan zones at 65-70% FTP would be easy.
Just to add some variety to this convo which seems to have gone off the rails this is my poor man’s version of an ISM/Norwegian Base Protocol for the super time crunched (3-6hr/week). It’s pieced together from TR posts, ISM interviews and podcasts with coaches/athletes connected to the Norwegian triathletes/Olympic team
Goal: Increase power below LT1
Pioneer-2 - measure lactate at the end of workout and adjust intensity accordingly for next Pioneer-2 workout so that lactate < LT1
Spruce-2 - adjust intensity during workout to cap HR at 83% maxHR and do second interval at low cadence (50-60 rpm)
Round Bald - If I have time on the weekend, I do this workout with the same constraints as Spruce-2 otherwise I just alternate between Pioneer-2 and Spruce-2 on weekdays with a day of rest if I feel like it which is not very often
Every 4 weeks do a lactate test to establish LT1. I do 8x6min steps with 1 min rest to test lactate and 20w increments
Result: w/kg at LT1 went from 1.6 to 2.8 in 3 months. I know this isn’t super impressive for most but given my time constraints and the ease of the plan, I think it’s not too bad
those pics only confirm what I believed before the kJ detour, from a numbers point-of-view its about TSS and training load (CTL). Adding advanced aerobic (tempo/SS) to increase training load versus doing zone2 alone. Ignoring all other considerations and just focusing on the numbers in those screenshots.
p.s. and back in the day I had a lot of TR SS workouts like Monitor, Galena, and Eclipse with an IF in the mid 0.8s so stuff like 0.83, 0.84, 0.85. All of those are higher IFs than your screenshot. But again, during base my opinion from looking at a bunch of plans from different companies, and listening to coaches, its about engineering more TSS and CTL into the plan for those that can’t do 12-20 hours/week of base.
15% more than 1096 is 1260.
13% less than 1260 is 1096.
You can’t compare PLs across WO types like that. Things like Beehive and Boarstone are the absolute peak of 2 hour endurance WOs. Comparable 2 hour SS would be level 8 or higher. It doesn’t really matter because no one ever said that there doesn’t exist SS WOs with lower kJs than endurance. The disagreement was with the claim that SS and endurance WOs typically have the same kJs.
TR hasn’t taken down its blogs or support articles on training load, no need for me to explain things. Buy Skiba’s Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes because its a far easier read than Training and Racing with a Power Meter. Read it, in particular chapter 7 on engineering training and modeling/predicting performance. This stuff has been around a long time. CTL and TSS are about trends and the big picture.
I will say that my long ride plus 2 hefty TR workouts is very hard going, on top of my mostly demanding job and family commitments (2 young kids). Also, While I am definitely faster, what I’m not really seeing is a significant reduction in my heart rate or significantly enhanced ability to work at higher power for longer (eg longer climbs), which is really what I want.
I don’t have much to add to this thread either. However, from personal experience (this summer), I PR’d in a Sprint (age group win), Olympic (3rd in age group) and 70.3 triathlon. My training consisted of almost all upper zone 2. I averaged around 9 hours/week with 3 swims, 3 bikes and 3 runs per week. I was only given intensity approximately once every 10 days. My FTP came down, but my watts at upper zone 2 heart rate went way up (over 25 watts). I questioned the training all the way through up to race day, but it worked for me.
